The following overview is offered to assist faculty and student preparation of applications to the many programs of the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center. Of course, each program’s guidelines should be read carefully and applicants should note that the awards carry different proposal requirements and selection criteria.

There are two general aspects of our structure that might be useful to know in the preparation of your proposals. First, our competitive awards are managed through a system of standing committees consisting of faculty from the Taft disciplines. Each committee is multidisciplinary, but each committee member is required to serve as Taft faculty and not as a representative from a Taft department. Thus, we operate as a peer and collegial system of competitive review (meaning that committee members from applicants’ departments evaluate proposals). As a result, applicants should understand that the Taft Research Center can not provide written evaluations of proposals that are denied funding. Committee members must remove themselves from committee evaluations of proposals they have submitted or with which they are associated directly.

Second, there are two forms of oversight that assure the standing committees follow the stated guidelines and procedures of our award categories – the Faculty Chair of the Taft Research Center sits ex officio on all committees and consistently reviews our processes. Additionally, our competitive awards are presented to our Faculty Executive Board (18 members), who must vote to authorize each round of funding.

With these structural features in mind, we recommend the following observations as “best practices” for applicants, beyond, of course, the absolute need for careful attention to award guidelines.

1. Write for a multidisciplinary committee. The Taft Research Center covers a diverse set of disciplines. It is incumbent upon applicants to present their proposals in such a fashion that our committees can understand the importance of the research activity. One need not sacrifice disciplinary specificity to make clear, for example: where this work fits in the existing literature; why it is important to that literature; why the methodological approach is appropriate to the task; and how the proposal fits in one’s professional development.
   
2. Write to Taft. Reinforcing point one, it is important not to simply cut and paste existing proposals to other funding sources and submit them to Taft. Just as one would approach a disciplinary-specific funding source with a discipline-specific proposal, so one must approach Taft proposals with an understanding of our multidisciplinary review system and write to that system.
   
3. Focus on the little things. For example, make sure the budget is properly sized to meet our stated objective in travel categories of “ transportation by the most economical carrier.” Also note that many awards have unique budget restrictions based on our endowment. Budgets should include only those items authorized under the award. Proposals that do meet these expectations compare more favorably than those that do not.
   
4. Provide what is requested. Do not provide materials that are not required according to the award application page. Again note, however, that our awards differ in terms of what constitutes a complete packet. Adhere to word limits.
   
5. Plan for deadlines. Our website contains a list of our deadlines that is updated in August each year and typically varies only by a day or two from the previous year unless announced through communication from the Taft Chair. We adhere strictly to our deadlines. Applicants sending proposals through campus mail should allow at least two full days before the deadline and should confirm receipt if they are concerned. We accept hand-delivered proposals on the deadline. We do not accept electronic submissions. *Note: applications that require external recommendations are considered incomplete if those letters do not arrive in the Taft office by the deadline.